Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Am I also correct that the level of funding for military construction this year in this bill, the 1996 authorization bill as requested by the administration, was about $2 billion over what was requested and appropriated in the 1995 bill?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Am I also correct that what we are essentially doing here is authorizing what the House has already appropriated, or the House appropriation/authorization provides, and that is about $500 million more than the administration request?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the Senator's responses very much. Mr. President, this is the same vote we cast last week where I indicated my opposition to adding additional money. I think the figures we had last week were that we were adding $474 million to what was requested by the administration, and in addition another $300 million. I tried to persuade my colleagues to not add the additional $300 million and was unsuccessful. We had a vote on it. I understand that the Senate supports the amendment that the Senator from South Carolina is offering here, and I will not ask for a rollcall vote, but I would like the record to show that I oppose the amendment and have me recorded in opposition at the time this is voted by voice.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We are going above the administration's request by this amount, is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield for a response from the Senator from Georgia, because I have two or three other questions I want to ask.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I guess we have six or eight questions posed to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we went to a vote on any of the amendments, I just wanted to ask the Senator from Georgia a few questions about his understanding primarily of the Kyl amendment. I certainly support his perfecting amendment as I understand it, and believe it is well considered. But I have some concerns about the Kyl amendment, which it is an amendment to. And I wanted to just clarify the thinking of the ranking manager on this bill as to what his thoughts were on the import of the Kyl amendment. It seems harmless enough in some respects. When you read it, it says it is a sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, limited ballistic attack. I agree with that. But I add to that that we also ought to protect all Americans from cruise missile attack, terrorism, and from a variety of other potential hazards. I guess my concern is that, as the Senator from Georgia knows very well, and all of us on the Armed Services Committee know, there is considerable controversy about the provisions in the bill that we are now beginning to debate regarding ballistic missile defense. We have a letter from Secretary Perry to Senator Nunn, and I am sure to the chairman of the committee as well, dated the 28th of July, where Secretary Perry makes a variety of points or a series of points about this. He says he wants to register strong opposition to the missile defense provisions of the Senate Armed Services Committee defense authorization bill. In his view, they would institute congressional micromanagement of the administration's missile defense program and put us on a pathway to abrogating the ABM treaty. I am concerned that I do not want to support the Kyl amendment if it puts us on a pathway to abrogating the ABM Treaty. I would be interested in the Senator from Georgia giving me his perspective on that as to whether I could vote for the Kyl amendment with confidence that it was not an endorsement of the various ballistic missile provisions in this bill, many of which I intend to join with Senator Exon and others to strike here when the opportunity arises.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me clarify one more time. My own position is that I do support the existing law with regard to the ABM Treaty, which I gather was adopted by us in 1991. And as the Senator from Georgia reads the Kyl amendment, the adoption of that amendment would be consistent with existing law and with the 1991 language which we put on the books; is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, when it comes to controlling Government spending, nothing stands out in my mind more than the billion dollars that the Federal agencies toss out the window every year in energy waste. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest energy waster. This year agencies will spend almost $4 billion to heat, cool and power their 500,000 buildings. Both the Office of Technology Assessment and the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group that I chair with Senator Jeffords, have estimated that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually. To achieve these savings, agencies just need to buy the same energy saving technologies--insulation, building controls, and energy efficient lighting, heating and air conditioning--that have been installed in many private sector offices and homes. Why, because there are now businesses, known as energy service companies, that stand ready to upgrade Federal facilities at no up- front cost to the Government--That's right, at no up-front cost to the Federal Government. These companies offer what are called energy saving performance contracts which provide private sector expertise to assess what energy saving technologies are most cost effective, provide nongovernmental financing to make the improvements, install and maintain the equipment and guarantee the energy savings will be achieved. Agencies pay for the service over time using the energy costs they have saved--if they do not see the saving they do not pay for the service--its that simple, that is the guarantee. This type of contract is used every day in the private sector and State and local government facilities. For instance, Honeywell Corp. has entered into these energy saving arrangements with over 1,000 local school districts nationwide, allowing schools to reinvest $800 million in savings in critical education resources rather than continuing to pay for energy waste. Unfortunately, even though Congress first authorized Federal agencies to take advantage of this innovative business approach in 1986 agencies have been dragging their heals. To help get things moving, the Department of Energy recently prepared streamlined procedures to encourage their use. Now is the time for Congress to put the agencies feet to the fire on financial reform of Government energy waste. Agencies should enter into these partnerships with the private sector. That is why, today I am proposing an amendment calling for each Federal agency covered by this bill, to reduce Government energy costs by 5 percent in 1996. I am also asking that agencies report back to us by the end of 1996 to ensure that they have actually taken action to reduce their energy costs. You know, we are often called upon up here to make really hard controversial decisions that please some and anger others. This is a winner for everyone. If 1,000 local school boards have examined it and are reaping the savings, I say its time we got our Nation's biggest energy waster on track, too. With this one, simple reform, we will create thousands of job and business opportunities in every one of our States, improve the environment by reducing air pollution and save ourselves hundreds of million of dollars every year, at no up-front cost to taxpayers. As my kid would say, ``Dad, its a no brainer''. amendment no. 2060 (Purpose: To provide for the use of funds for the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor) On page 20, lines 22 and 23, after ``expended'' insert ``, of which amount within available funds $56,000,000 may be available to continue operation of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (for which purpose, the Secretary may use savings from reducing general administrative expenses in accordance with the Department of Energy's strategic alignment and downsizing effort, but none of the savings used for this purpose shall come from programmatic accounts within this title)''. Madam President, I rise in support of the pending amendment. This amendment is a smart one because it makes use of existing Department of Energy resources. It is also a no-cost amendment. It does not increase any account in this bill. And it does not take one cent from any other Department of Energy research program. Last year's conference report on the energy and water bill contained language calling for an expert commission to report to Congress on what the future of the fusion program should be. This report was done by the President's Committee on Advisors on Science and Technology or more commonly known as PCAST. This report was written by energy research experts within Government, the private sector, universities, and the national laboratories. The PCAST report anticipated that the fusion program would have to live with fewer resources in the next few years. Despite the dwindling resources envisioned by the PCAST, they strongly recommended that the existing Tokamak fusion test reactor [TFTR] at Princeton University operate for another 3 years. And the statement of administration policy accompanying this bill reiterates support for the PCAST report in general and TFTR specifically. However, the current language in the energy and water bill is ambiguous about the TFTR machine. Therefore, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Secretary of Energy will have the authority to keep TFTR effectively operating for another 3 years. And it accomplishes exactly what the PCAST report called for with regard to TFTR. Madam President, the fusion program has been a success for this country. The TFTR machine at Princeton University has broken world records of fusion power in the last 2 years. Furthermore, the TFTR at Princeton is the only machine in the world that uses deuterium-tritium fuel, which is the type of fuel that might one day be used in a commercial fusion machine. Madam President, at this time I would like to tell my colleagues about some of the potential advantages to developing fusion energy. Fusion energy holds the promise of an abundant, clean burning, inexpensive energy alternative for the next century. The byproducts of fusion energy are thousands of times less dangerous than fission. The byproducts also cannot be converted into nuclear weapons. Finally, fusion energy has no chemical combustion products and therefore, would not contribute to acid rain or global warming. It is clear that fusion energy is an environmentally sound energy source worth the investment of Federal resources. Despite all of the promise and success of the fusion program in the last 2 years, its budget has been cut deeply this year. It has been cut by 40 percent which is much more than other energy research programs. For example: Nuclear energy was only cut by 6 percent. Biological and environmental research was only cut by 4 percent. General sciences was only cut by 1 percent. Nuclear physics was only cut 8 percent. And some part of the energy research budget actually received increases in this bill: High energy physics received a 2-percent increase; and Basic energy science got a 6-percent increase. Madam President, I understand that some of the cuts in the fusion program and in other programs in this bill are necessary. The allocation for this bill is less than it was last year. The managers of this bill have had to make some tough decisions and I commend them for their hard work in putting this bill together. However, I believe that adopting this amendment will improve this bill while not increasing its tight allocation. This amendment simply allows the Secretary of Energy the flexibility to operate the TFTR machine to complete all the ongoing experiments at Princeton. The Federal Government has already invested over $1 billion in the fusion facility at Princeton. It would be shortsighted to stop these continuing research activities at Princeton, especially since the machine will be ending its operations in 3 years. This amendment does not cut the core fusion program or the international fusion activities funded in this bill. Nor does it cut any other energy research activities funded in this bill. It simply allows the fusion research on the TFTR machine at Princeton to continue. Madam President, in 3 years the fusion program will be at a turning point. At that time, we must decide whether or not we will make the long-term investment in developing fusion energy. We may or may not have the resources at that time to go forward. But we should move the fusion program forward until that day comes. We should make the best use of the facilities and human resources that we have invested so much into over the years. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this no-cost amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I advised the Republican manager earlier that I am glad to do that, except that I think I would like to reserve the right of each of the sponsors, Senators McCain and Senator Kerrey, to speak for a few moments about the bill. If they have not had a chance to do that, I want to have that opportunity.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I asked that the amendment be read because I think it is very straightforward. Members should not have any difficulty understanding what the amendment is. It is an amendment offered by myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska. What it does is it proposes to strike $300 million from this bill and to bring the level of spending in this bill back to the level that the President requested. That request from the President, from the administration, was not an insubstantial request. It was almost $2 billion above last year's level. The budget request was for $10.698 billion for military construction and family housing, which was an increase of $1.963 billion over the 1995 appropriation. The budget request included a major initiative on family housing, an increase of $605 million above the 1995 level. It also included $1.2 billion in additional funding to carry out the base closure and realignment that has been ordered by current and past base closure commissions. So we are, in this amendment, not trying to interfere with a substantial increase in military construction funding over last year's level. The President felt that was appropriate. The administration felt it was appropriate. We are not, in this amendment, trying to attack that. What we are saying, though, is that we need to have some limit on the extent of the add-ons that we, in Congress, engage in, if, in fact, we do have a concern about deficit reduction--and we clearly need to have that concern. The committee was able to find about $400 million to reduce in what the President requested; another $57 million in rescissions from prior- year appropriations. If the committee had stayed within the President's request, that would have given them an amount of $474 million to earmark for various items that are called to the attention of committee members of this body on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, $474 million did not appear to be enough for Member items. The committee added an additional $300 million to cover those items, and I believe this is a luxury that we cannot defend to the American people at a time when deficit reduction is paramount in the Nation's political agenda, and deserves to be paramount in the agenda of the Nation when our debt is ballooning to almost $5 trillion. The committee will argue that the projects that they have added, the $747 million in all that they have added, meet the criteria which the Senator from Arizona, my cosponsor on this amendment, has been in the forefront of establishing. That is, all of these projects are in the Pentagon's 5-year plan and they have merely moved up the execution of the projects for this next fiscal year. They will argue that the National Guard has come to rely on these add-ons because the Pentagon always leaves out things which are necessary for the National Guard. These arguments do have some merit, and I think they can be used to justify the most important $474 million of add-ons. But in my view, the arguments cannot justify the marginal $300 million that has been added to that. Unlike the cuts which we will make in future appropriations bills which come before the Senate in areas such as education and research and health, the projects which are ultimately cut if our amendment is approved will be in future defense requests, some next year, some as late as the year 2001. Essentially, these are projects which the administration said are meritorious, but we cannot afford them this year. What I am saying by this amendment, and what my cosponsors are saying, is we agree with that. We cannot afford the additional $300 million this year. I say to my Democratic colleagues who will bemoan cuts in various domestic discretionary programs--and I will agree with them that some of those cuts are inappropriate--but how can we in the Congress justify adding funds for marginal projects in this bill while we are making those cuts in domestic discretionary programs? And I would say to my Republican colleagues, many of whom, like the Senator from Arizona, feel the investment in defense is inadequate, is this the place where additional funding should be spent if we have additional funding to spend in defense? I do not believe the American people want us to conduct business as usual. It is always striking to me that when the Defense authorization bill passes, and we generally make significant policy decisions in that Defense authorization bill, unfortunately, in our hometowns and in our home States the headlines in the local papers are about the military construction projects that are funded in the Defense bill. So I understand there is a local imperative that drives the funding of these military construction projects. I do believe we need to at least hold the level of increase to the very substantial level that the administration has asked for and not add to it in this bill. The way we propose this legislation, it would be up to the Appropriations Committee to make a decision as to where the priority is and where it wants to spend that $474 billion of add- ons. I have no argument with them on that. That is the nature of our committee structure, and I think they can make that decision. If we do not stop business as usual in this bill, then where are we going to? Mr. President, $474 million in add-ons is enough. I, for one, do not support going with an additional $300 million above and beyond that. I hope a majority of the Senate will agree, after all of the speeches have been made on deficit reduction, that the message sent by adding $774 million in add-ons is inappropriate, and the American people would not support it. Let me conclude by just reading a short statement from the administration on this. The administration says in this statement of administration policy: The Administration is committed to balancing the Federal budget by the [fiscal year] 2005. The President's budget proposes to reduce discretionary spending for [fiscal year] 1996 by $5 billion in outlays below the FY 1995 level. The Administration does not support the level of funding assumed by the House or Senate Committee 602(b) allocations. * * * * * The Administration strongly objects to $648 million in funding for approximately 100 unrequested military and family housing construction projects. With the Nation facing serious budget constraints, such a spending increase is not affordable. Mr. President, let me also point out there is an item in here that I think people just need to be aware of. That is, this subcommittee of Appropriations has been given the job of funding, as I understand it, the renovation of the Pentagon. There is $161 million in this bill for renovation of the Pentagon. I support that funding. Frankly, when I saw the figure, I was a little bit taken aback and thought maybe this is a bit excessive. I know that is a big building, but $161 million is a lot of renovation. Then I noticed in the bill, on page 20 of the bill, a provision which really did, I think, cause me to think we should focus on this. It says, ``None of the funds appropriated in this act may be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon reservation facility renovation unless the Secretary certifies that the total cost for planning, design, construction, installation of equipment for the renovation of the Pentagon will not exceed $1.2 billion.'' Mr. President, I thought the $161 million was a little excessive. Now I understand the $161 million is next year's installment on renovation of the Pentagon. It is $1.2 billion which this committee is saying is the total that they are going to agree to provide. So I make this point for my colleagues, just to make the point we are not being stingy with the military. This is not a case of the military being totally left unfunded. They are getting nearly a 20-percent increase from last year's funding in military construction. We are agreeing here to go up to $1.2 billion to renovate the Pentagon. In our amendment, we are not in any way interfering with the addition of $474 million of Member interest items. We are just saying, let us draw the line someplace, and that someplace ought to be at the level that the administration requested. That means we ought to strike $300 million of those add-ons as part of this bill. So that is a brief explanation. My colleagues from Arizona and Nevada wish to speak on this. I, therefore, reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Montana if he would yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make the obvious point here that this is not a question of whether people support the military, or the National Guard, or family housing, or money for base realignment and closure. The President, in the budget sent to this Congress, asked for an increase of just about 20 percent in military construction from last year for military construction and family housing both. There is a request for $605 million--an additional $605 million--for family housing, above what we had last year. There is over $1.2 billion in additional funding to carry out base realignment and closure. The amendment that I am offering in no way interferes with any of that funding. The amendment that I am offering says that, in addition to what the President requested, the subcommittee can add $474 million of add-ons. But they should not be able to go above that. It should not be $774 million of add-ons. That is all I am saying. Let us keep the amount spent in this area within the confines of what the administration requested. Mr. President, we have two standards in this Senate and in this Congress. It is one standard when it is military spending and a totally different standard when it is domestic spending. You are seeing a very good example of it in the arguments being made around here right now. Deficit reduction was a big issue in this Senate last month. I remember lots of speeches last month, the month before that, and the month before that, about how we have to make tough decisions. The time has come, and business as usual cannot continue. The American people want some change; they do not want excessive spending in these areas. Well, that is what this amendment is about. All this talk about the National Guard--all of the requests for the National Guard that are being funded could be funded in the $474 million of add-ons that we are not in any way interfering with. The family housing--the $605 million there--we are not interfering with that. The simple fact is, Mr. President, the additional $300 million that is in this bill, which I am now proposing we strike, is not a priority for the military; it is not a priority for the country. The Senate needs to go on record about whether we are serious about deficit reduction. We are very good at giving speeches, going home and saying, boy, we are really doing the right thing, and we are making the tough decisions. This is not that tough a decision, Mr. President. This is $300 million that the military says is not a priority. There is no reason why we need to be going ahead and spending it. That is the simple issue. I believe the taxpayers of this country would support our amendment to delete this $300 million and have it available for a higher priority--military use, or have it able for some domestic use, which would be a higher priority--or apply it to deficit reduction, which is what the amendment calls for. It essentially says let us not spend that $300 million which is not a priority. So that is the amendment. I hope very much the Senate will support it. I think the people send us here to Congress to make tough decisions about what our priorities are. If deficit reduction is a priority, people ought to vote for this amendment. I appreciate the chance to explain the amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, am I correct that there is an additional 5 minutes reserved for me?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no objection.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Reserving the right to object, I just want to be sure I will get the opportunity to sum up and make the case for my amendment last.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask one additional question of my colleague. He understands also that our amendment does not interfere with the appropriation of $474 million in add-ons which would totally satisfy the Guard money or Reserve money add-ons, as I understand it. What we are saying is that above and beyond, if the Appropriations Committee chose to give that a priority, there would be funding to do all the Guard and Reserves. It is just a question of whether or not we are going to add $300 million more to that. So I want to be sure that was clear, Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I want to be sure there was understanding between us. Our amendment does not cut any of the funds that are being appropriated to carry out the BRAC recommendations, either the previous BRAC recommendations or these BRAC recommendations. They are strictly add- ons in other areas and not in BRAC.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are spending extra time voting on this amendment since we just voted to rescind $16.4 billion in domestic spending. I think that was a courageous vote; it was a hard choice. What this amendment that we are now considering does is it says that we will allow $474 million of add-ons to military construction, but we will not allow an additional $300 million above that. This is not a question of funding the National Guard. There is plenty of money in this bill to fund the National Guard needs. This is not a question of family housing. There is plenty of money in this bill to fund the family housing needs of the military. What we are saying is deficit reduction has to matter, even when you are talking about defense dollars, as well as when you are talking about domestic dollars. Mr. President, this is a reasonable amendment. It brings the bill into line with the President's request. It is fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to vote against tabling the amendment. Vote On Amendment No. 1834

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona, who is also a cosponsor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be added as a cosponsor on the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. When it comes to controlling Government spending, nothing stands out in my mind more than the $1 billion that the Federal agencies toss out the window every year in energy waste. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest energy waster. This year agencies will spend almost $4 billion to heat, cool, and power their 500,000 buildings. Both the Office of Technology Assessment and the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group that I chair with Senator Jeffords, have estimated that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually. To achieve these savings, agencies just need to buy the same energy saving technologies--insulation, building controls, and energy efficient lighting, heating, and air-conditioning--that have been installed in many private sector offices and homes. I know what you may be thinking, ``Here we go again with another crazy idea about how we need to give agencies more money so they can hopefully save money sometime in the future.'' Well you are wrong. Why? Because there are now businesses, known as energy service companies, that stand ready to upgrade Federal facilities at no up-front cost to the Government--that's right, at no up-front cost to the Federal Government. These companies offer what are called energy saving performance contracts which provide private sector expertise to assess what energy saving technologies are most cost effective, provide nongovernmental financing to make the improvements, install and maintain the equipment, and guarantee that energy savings will be achieved. Agencies pay for the service over time using the energy costs they have saved--if they do not see the saving they do not pay for the service--it's that simple, that's the guarantee. This type of contract is used every day in the private sector and State and local government facilities. For instance, Honeywell Corp. has entered into these energy-saving arrangements with over 1,000 local school districts nationwide, allowing schools to reinvest $800 million in savings in critical education resources rather than continuing to pay for energy waste. Unfortunately, even though Congress first authorized Federal agencies to take advantage of this innovative business approach in 1986, agencies have been dragging their heels. To help get things moving, the Department of Energy recently prepared streamlined procedures to encourage their use. Now is the time for Congress to put the agencies feet to the fire on financial reform of Government energy waste. Agencies must enter into these partnerships with the private sector. That's why, today, I am introducing an amendment calling for the agencies to reduce Government energy costs by 5 percent in 1996. I'm also asking that agencies report back to us by the end of 1996 to ensure that they have actually taken action to reduce their energy costs. You know, we are often called upon up here to make really hard controversial decisions that please some and anger others. This is a winner for everyone. If 1,000 local school boards have examined it and are reaping the savings, I say it's about time we got our Nation's biggest energy waster on track too. With this one, simple reform, we will create thousands of job and business opportunities in every one of our States, improve the environment by reducing air pollution, and save ourselves hundreds of millions of dollars every year, at no up-front cost to taxpayers.